The Federal Communication Commission's 400-page official order on net neutrality, released Thursday, will undoubtedly elicit lawsuits on various fronts once it is officially published in the Federal Register.
Net neutrality is about more than individual consumers' rights to stream video over the Web without paying extra for it. Partitioning the Internet into haves and have-nots will give big companies yet another advantage over smaller, more disruptive firms.
In spite of the fact that the net neutrality proposal that Google and Verizon published on Aug. 9 was not much like what the rumor mill predicted as late as the day before, the proposal sure has kicked off a lot of controversy.
U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns wants so badly to stop the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from creating network neutrality rules that he appears ready to weaken the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
It seems that the battle for net neutrality has boiled down to an argument over economics. Dueling reports paint vastly different visions of the economic outlook for the broadband and Internet industries should the US FCC be successful in imposing net neutrality guidelines.
"Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want. Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet."
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is in legal limbo after a U.S. appellate court ruling Tuesday tossed out the agency's enforcement of network neutrality principles on broadband provider Comcast.
As the U.S. Federal Communications Commission moves toward developing formal net neutrality rules, some U.S. lawmakers and telecom-related companies have told the agency that new regulations will cause more problems than they're worth.
